Summit Loans, Inc. v. Pecola

• Decision Date: 14 March 1972
• Docket Number: No. 268,268
• Citation: 288 A.2d 114,265 Md. 43
• Parties: SUMMIT LOANS, INC. v. Barbara J. PECOLA.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 43

265 Md. 43

288 A.2d 114

SUMMIT LOANS, INC. v. Barbara J. PECOLA.

No. 268.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 14, 1972.

Robert L. Kay, Chevy Chase (Harry Protas, Jordan M. Spivok and Protas, Kay & Spivok, Chevy Chase, on brief), for appellant.

John T. Bell, Rockville (Charles W. Bell, Frank S. Cornelius and Bell & Bell, Rockville, on brief), for appellee.

Argued before HAMMOND, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH and DIGGES, JJ.

BARNES, Judge.

The sole question presented to us in this appeal from a judgment entered by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Joseph M. Mathias, J.) in favor of the appellee, Barbara J. Pecola-who was plaintiff below-for $1,500.00 compensatory damages and $7,500.00 punitive damages against the appellant, Summit Loans, Inc., in an action in tort to recover damages for invasion of privacy, is whether the trial court erred in declining to direct the verdict in favor of Summit Loans because of alleged insufficiency of evidence submitted on behalf of Mrs. Pecola.

The parties do not disagree in regard to the applicable law which is now well established in Maryland. In Carr v. Watkins, 227 Md. 578, 177 A.2d 841 (1962) Judge (now Chief Judge) Hammond, in a carefully considered opinion for the Court, reviewed the development of the law in regard to recovery of damages for the invasion of privacy and indicated that recovery of damages resulting from an invasion of privacy would, in a proper case, be allowed in this State. The Court cited with approval 1 Harper and James, The Law of Torts, §§ 9.5-9.7, at 677-91 (1956 ed.); Prosser, Torts, Ch. 20, at 635-44 (2nd ed. 1955); 4 Restatement of Torts § 867 at 398-402 (1939); Prosser, 'Privacy,' 48 Cal.L.Rev. 383, 386-89 (1960); and Warren and Brandeis, 'The Right to Privacy,' 4 Harv.L.Rev. 193 (1890), as well as a number of cases from other jurisdictions.

Judge Finan, for the Court, cited Carr with approval in Household Finance Corp. v. Bridge, 252 Md. 531, 250 A.2d 878 (1969) and in the opinion provided an excellent analysis of the cases, law review articles and textbook comments in regard to oral invasion of privacy. The Household Finance Corporation case ultimately turned upon the sufficiency of evidence, the Court holding that five or six telephone calls to the plaintiff and two or three telephone calls to her parents over a period of 11 months, under the circumstances of that case, did not present sufficient evidence upon which the plaintiff could recover. We pointed out, however, that the two principal factors to be considered in determining the sufficiency of evidence to justify presentation of the case to a jury were:

1. The degree of persistency with which the oral invasion of privacy occurs.

2. The vicious quality of the oral invasion of privacy.

Judge Finan stated for the Court:

'The problem of defining the scope or range within which the creditor might properly act in order to collect his debt, is the problem of balancing the interest of the creditor in collecting his debts against that of a debtor of ordinary sensibilities. Unless some latitude is given the creditor to invade, to a reasonable extent, the debtor's right of privacy, without incurring liability, we may well end up with the result that the creditor will find it preferable to proceed immediately with legal action when a debt becomes in default, without any warning to the debtor, rather than run the risk of being answerable to a supersensitive debtor in an action for invasion of privacy. See Davis v. General Finance & Thrift Corp., 80 Ga.App. 708, 57 S.E.2d 225 (1950).'

(252 Md. at 543, 250 A.2d at 885-886.)

In our opinion, the trial court properly declined in the present case to direct a verdict in favor of Summit Loans in that there was sufficient evidence offered on behalf of the plaintiff, Mrs. Pecola, to justify a jury in concluding that Summit Loans had used vile, insulting and outrageous language in a large number of telephone calls over a substantial period of time, indicating a deliberate and persistent course of improper conduct of such a nature as to support a verdict for punitive as well as for compensatory damages.

We not turn to a consideration of the facts, bearing in mind that in considering a ruling refusing to direct a verdict, the non-moving party is entitled to have us assume the truth of testimony offered on that party's behalf and resolve any conflicts in the testimony in favor of that party, giving that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that testimony. Katz v. Holsinger, Md., 286 A.2d 115 (1972).

Mrs. Pecola, testifying on her own behalf, stated that she was 36 years of age, married to Leonard Pecola and had three children. She was, at the time of trial, employed at the Randolph Nursing Home as a nurse's aide, but was not so employed in the fall and December of 1969. She was living at 4513 Mahan Road, Silver Spring, during the fall and winter of 1969, and had a telephone. Beginning the latter part of August, 1969, and continuing through January, 1970, representatives of Summit Loans made well over 200 telephone calls to her home. She identified the callers as Abraham Jacobs, a Mr. Wilson, a Mr. Gozzard and a Mr. Byers. There was an average of between 20 and 30 telephone calls a week. Pamela, Mrs. Pecola's daughter, then aged 11 years, answered the telephone most of the time. She remembered the first telephone call from Summit Loans by a man who gave his name as Mr. Jacobs at 2:30 P.M. on a day in late August, 1969, who asked Mrs. Pecola what in hell she was going to do about her husband's bill. Mrs. Pecola replied that she had no way to pay the bill, not being then employed, but Mr. Jacobs could call her husband where he worked, Summit Loans having his telephone number. After Mr. Jacobs hung up, a person who identified himself as Mr. Gozzard from Summit Loans immediately called up and told Mrs. Pecola that he was getting sick and fed up, something had to be done about the loan. When Mrs. Pecola said, 'Please, I don't owe it,' Mr. Gozzard stated, 'I am going to tell you, you're common trash.' Later, Summit Loans got her daughter Pamela on the telephone and 'started harassing the child.' The caller stated that he was Mr. Jacobs from Summit Loans. Summit Loans called the following morning at 9:00 A.M. and at 12:00 Noon. Sometimes they would call at 2:30 P.M. and at 5:30 P.M., but normally would not call when Mr. Pecola was at home and never on weekends. In September, 1969, a man identifying himself as Mr. Wilson from Summit Loans called and said, 'You bitch, do you really love your children?' Mrs. Pecola said, 'Yes, I love them.' Mr. Wilson said, 'How would you like for them not to come home? How would you not like to see your kids come home from school?' Mrs. Pecola hung up, after which Mr. Wilson immediately called back, laughed and said, 'You know, you better check the schools.' Mrs. Pecola proceeded to get the younger child and went down in the park to meet her other two children. She recalled a telephone call in the beginning of October by a person identifying himself as Mr. Jacobs of Summit Loans at 2:30 P.M., who stated, 'Do you love your husband; how would you like not to see him come home?' When Mrs. Pecola said, 'What do you mean?' he 'just laughed and hung up.' Later at 5:30 P.M., Mr. Jacobs called back and said, 'Has he come home yet?' Mrs. Pecola said, 'No,' that being a day her husband was late in coming home. Mrs. Pecola became hysterical and could not finish preparing dinner. About three days later a call came in from Summit Loans-it sounded like Mr. Gozzard's voice-and it stated, 'hey, we got him here; would you like to hear him cry, hear him cry in the background?' Mrs. Pecola hung up and called her husband at his work to see if he was all right. He said that he was and 'what is wrong?' Mrs. Pecola then repeated what had been said.

As a result of the continued harassment, Mrs. Pecola became extremely nervous and depressed, sometimes regurgitating because of her upset condition. She consulted Dr. Raymond T. Benack who prescribed transquilizers as medication-one was Deprol and the other was Butazolidin-because she could not sleep at night. Mr. Gozzard from Summit Loans had called and stated, 'Hey, you bitch, how would you like to get a phone call around three or four o'clock when you was sleeping real quietly?' She replied, 'Please have mercy.' Mr. Gozzard called Mrs. Pecola at 3:00 A.M. in the morning and said, 'Hi, this is Summit.' Mrs. Pecola hung up, and was immediately called back. She heard the same voice which began to laugh so that she hung up again. She was called back so that she took the receiver off of the telephone and put it under the sofa but could not eliminate the 'buzzing noise that it makes.'

Mr. Pecola in late August and September, 1969, was working for Universal Acceptance Corporation, an automobile financing company, and at one time had...